They have no fucking clue who ponte or reck is Havoc... this isn't biahq... or fpscentral.com lol...

lol well... hey... you do! So there... cool:

First off, regarding the US engagement policy, the United States not only meets the international requirements of the LOAC, it also exceeds them with their own ROE published as the SROE.

Here is some information on the LOAC:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

Remember, the rules followed by the US - the SROE - meet or exceed minimum requirements of the LOAC in all areas. A copy of the unclassified portions of the SROE can be found here:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/dod/docs/cjcs_sroe.pdf

The United States military, after Vietnam, found it necessary to make identification of hostiles and hostile targets as streamlined and efficient as possible. I doubt you understand the weight of this since you're probably still in high school and never had an 8-year old start tossing grenades at you. I'm not saying I have, but I'm sure you catch my drift.

Again, research on this kind of thing is important. It is irresponsible to make a broad assumption that the US engagement policy is the cause of the majority of the civilian casualties in Iraq. As I recall, insurgents managed to exceed US-related civilian casualties for a full quarter of a year in a single day. Keep things in proportion.

[quote:5028f]He added: "By simply calling for 'troops out', it gives succour to terrorists who are killing the very trade unionists and ordinary citizens we should be supporting."[/quote:5028f]



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 30,00.html

I didnt say you supported the terrorist-but it helps the terrorist newtworks

sleeping:

yeah, i guess this has gotten offtopic--there will never be another US draft (hopefully).

Drew, first off you are doing a very good job of proving me wrong, something which doesn’t happen very often, so I would like you commend you that. And secondly I would like to apologize for stereotyping conservatives, more often than not I run across people who simply deny the facts and the support right wing agendas without fully understanding what they are supporting. You are an exception. Anyway maybe it’s not the policies then, but there is no denying the fact that the friendly fire rate of the US forces is disturbing high. I hate to blame it on the soldiers, but is it possible that the squad leaders are trigger happy? After all it is known that the US pilots that bomb the Canadians in the training zone in Afghanistan were given methamphetamine….

I won't even deny that most people who think they share my views tend to be on the less educated side of things. You are beyond 100% correct on that point biggrin:

Anyway, it's hard to really pick out one particular situation in combat and say, "This is why there is friendly fire," or "This is why there are civilian casualties." Combat is a very fluid and unpredictable thing. When you're making decisions with the knowledge that a hesitation or a mistake could potentially cost you not only your life, but cost the lives of your squad mates, it's going to affect your decision-making process. It is probably also a good idea to remember that the United States deploys an exponentially larger number of soldiers into combat situations around the world than does Canada or the UK. This could very easily be the reason for higher numbers of friendly fire incidents.

As for the incident with the US/Canadian friendly-fire.. there were a whole, whole bunch of problems with that. The commander who ordered the training exercise in the first place never reported it to CENTCOM in the area so that all entities in the area were aware. Not even the Canadian AWACS crew, who was providing the radar and imaging data to the pilots, knew that the soldiers on the ground were Canadian. They soldiers on the ground were also firing their weapons as it was a live-fire exercise.

That being said, the US pilots actually violated the ROE by not attempting to evade the fire (they were at 20,000+ feet I believe, which basically already evades any small-arms fire) prior to dropping the bomb. That's a problem with the specific officer and his commander.

As for the stimulants, they were on dexamphetamine as I recall. Very different from methamphetamine. It is still an extremely powerful stimulant, however it doesn't have a majority of the negative effects of methamphetamines.

Saddam Hussein does not support Osama Bin Laden.

The War in Iraq- politically correct imperialism, Iraq has a lot of oil, we take out the Government and ruin the country there's lots of $£ to be made rebuilding it and there would be no economic sanctions to be made against a crackpot dictatorship, the trade would flow freely and the US economy which was in recession can recover. There were no WMD's, this was just an excuse to launch an illegal pre-emptive strike against Iraq. If we were really concerned about fighting terrorism there's a million and one other places we could have invaded instead of Iraq, it just so happens to be that a large number of those million and one places do not have as much oil. There could be terrorists in Angola, the country is floating on oil, and a thousand times more corrupt than Iraq was, it could provide a safe haven for anyone on the run. But Fundamentalist Christians don't think the antiChrist will rule from Luanda, they think he will rule from Bagdad, and neocon Jews don't care squat for Black countries; to them it's all "zululand".

I sometimes wonder why we didn't invade Iran instead as they probably have closer ties with terrorists and have more evidence of WMD. I think I may have accidentally stumbled over Bush's foreign policy with this thought because Bush knew that Iraq didn't have any WMD's so decided to take over. But he wasn't sure if Iran had any, so he was catious not to provocate the disaster.

I m not sure what your point was in saying " fuck it is a serial killers dream." However i do not think the US Army is recruiting psychotic people.

That s like saying...Im sure there must be some members who does not masturbate in this forum....but over 90% do. calmdown: I m not really trying to bash you, but just trying to prove that your statement was useless for this thread and was more like trying to either start an argument with someone or you just read the thread and you felt like saying anything. In other words spam it freak: ironic eek:

There is no way there will be a draft for just the war in Iraq, but it really does not matter, I am already taken care of.

i dont see why all the people from canada and england are all worked up , this is an issue that deals with america only.

Not really, it could definately cause certain things to happen. Especially if the Britons are our Ally during a draft. Would they do the same? My ignorance of the British equivalent of a draft can be understood.

And it doesnt matter what country youre from to be anti war.

ok